A few thoughts on Jane Eyre

 

A handful of years ago, I took a class on literature in film, in which we read a number of stories/novels and compared them with their film adaptations.  At the center of the class was Jane Eyre.  After reading the novel, we watched a 2006 miniseries of the novel and, in small groups, watched one of three other adaptations.  I had a number of quibbles about the miniseries, particularly the creative license described below – I got into more than one debate with fellow students on this issue.  (Note:  I’ll be going into some detail of a major plot twist from the book, so anyone wary of Victorian spoilers take heed.)

 

In both works, governess Jane Eyre falls in love with her employer, Edward Rochester, and despite the stringent class divisions of the day, he falls in love with her as well.  She is shocked when he declares his feelings, and as they begin to plan a wedding, she seems to be heading toward an impossible dream life.  Naturally, it isn’t until they reach the altar that she learns of his secret:  he’s already married, to a mad woman living in a locked chamber in his attic.

 

While Jane is obviously horrified and devastated in both versions, this is where things diverge.  In the book, Rochester admits that they can’t legally marry but is desperate for them to go somewhere they can carry on together, spouses in all but name.  In the miniseries, though he still begs her to go away with him, he promises they’ll be as brother and sister to each other.  Novel and adaptation alike show a brokenhearted Jane refusing him, and the next section of the story finds them separated.

 

In class, I spoke with several classmates who preferred the miniseries version.  They felt Rochester comes across as too pathetic in the book, so it’s no big surprise when Jane denies him.  In turn, they found his requests in the miniseries more reasonable, making him come across much better.  To me, though, this change misses the whole point of Jane’s dilemma.

 

Jane loves Rochester heart and soul; her greatest desire is to be with him.  However, she is deeply devoted to her religion and believes it would be against God to stay with him if they couldn’t get married.  So, the book offers her her greatest desire at the price of her integrity.  She has to choose between her happiness (his, too – it kills her to refuse him) and God’s law.  To deny herself of everything she wants in order to abide by her convictions is massive, and it displays tremendous fortitude on her part.  Essentially, she has to cut out her heart so she can remain the person she’s tried to be.

 

By contrast, the miniseries offers her something she doesn’t really want at no compromise to her ideals.  She wants to be with him, yes, but not platonically.  Earlier in the story, when she thinks he’s in love with another woman, she makes plans to find a different situation because she can’t bear to remain in his home and see him married to someone else.  As such, I can’t believe she’d be satisfied with the whole “as brother and sister” arrangement, so even though he’s not asking her to go against her religion in this version, there’s not much reason for her to accept.  The only incentive is her desire to make him happy, and compared to the intense, messy richness of the choice in the novel, that isn’t enough.  (Not to mention, it makes her conflict more about him, and I prefer it when it’s mainly about her desires and beliefs.)  So, although Rochester may seem less whiny/desperate/whatever in the miniseries, I know which version is more rewarding for me.